Cause of action (77,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Cause of action
Total judgments found: 286
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 4547
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that a decision of an international organisation finding that a harassment complaint is unfounded and rejecting a claim for compensation for the material or moral injury allegedly suffered by the staff member who lodged that complaint is an administrative decision that may adversely affect her or him. [T]he Tribunal has on several occasions held that any staff member who lodges such a complaint is entitled to know whether the person named in the complaint has been found to have committed acts of harassment and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered (see, in this respect, [...] Judgments 3965, consideration 9, and 4541, consideration 4). Consequently, contrary to the JAB’s view, the complainant was entitled to challenge in an internal appeal both the decision [...] informing her that the case had been closed because there had been no harassment and the decision [...] confirming that initial decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3965, 4541
Keywords:
cause of action; harassment; inquiry;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that it is irrelevant that IFAD no longer had any reason to take measures to protect the complainant in the present case since she had left the organisation. That is not what the complainant seeks. She does not claim protection, which would indeed be pointless, but compensation for the material and moral injury she submits she suffered as a result of the conduct in question.
Keywords:
cause of action; former official; harassment;
Judgment 4525
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of his request to be awarded monetary compensation for the material and moral injury he allegedly sustained as a consequence of the IAEA’s failure to investigate allegations of harassment made against him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Ordinarily, a decision not to conduct an investigation into allegations of harassment and to close the case without further action would not be regarded as a decision adversely affecting the official subject of the allegations, who therefore would have no cause of action to challenge such a decision.
Keywords:
cause of action; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4520
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of a staff member.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated, in consideration 2 of Judgment 3449, for example, that “[a]ny employee of an international organisation who is eligible for a post may challenge an appointment to that post, regardless of his or her chances of successful appointment to it (see Judgment 2959, under 3) [, but that i]n order to be entitled to take such action, however, he or she must have applied for the post or, failing that, must have been prevented from doing so through no fault of his or her own”. As the complainant, who did not apply for the subject vacant post, provides no evidence that he was prevented from doing so through no fault of his own, he does not have a cause of action.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3449
Keywords:
cause of action; selection procedure;
Judgment 4512
134th Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the ICC Registrar to reject his grievance complaint against Mr H. and to close the case.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1899, in consideration 3, “[d]isciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one.” Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Tribunal’s consistent case law has it that ordering that disciplinary action be taken against an alleged harasser is, in any event, outside its jurisdiction (see, for example, Judgments 4313, consideration 11, 4241, consideration 4, 3318, consideration 12, and 2811, consideration 15). The Tribunal finds that the complainant’s allegations and claims based on the ICC’s failure to impose disciplinary measures against Mr H. are irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4313
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4483
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contends there is a fundamental or inherent right of staff to meaningful consultation, referring to Judgments 1488 and 1062. However, these cases concerned the operation of specific provisions in the Service Regulations and do not establish the fundamental right contended for, nor has it been otherwise recognised by the Tribunal. Insofar as the complainant relies on the alleged violation of this asserted right, his complaint is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1062, 1488
Keywords:
cause of action; consultation; general decision; right;
Judgment 4463
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the disclosure of his medical situation.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t is a matter of settled case law that, as a general rule, a complainant must, in order to raise a cause of action, demonstrate arguably that the impugned administrative decision caused injury to her or him or was liable to cause injury (see, in particular, Judgments 3168, consideration 9, and 4317, consideration 4). Such is the case here, and it follows that the complainant must be allowed to argue before the Tribunal that the effect of the implied decision rejecting his grievance was to allow the injury he submits he suffered to persist.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 4317
Keywords:
cause of action;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that, following the exchange of pleadings, the sole genuine purpose remaining of the original complaint is, as the parties themselves acknowledge, to ascertain whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the moral injury he submits he suffered on account of the memorandum of 14 November 2017 being held in the WTO’s files between the date when the memorandum was issued and the date when the WTO removed it from all its files.
The complaint therefore retains a purpose because the Tribunal alone can decide whether the complainant is entitled to moral damages, which is a live controversy within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law (see, to that effect, Judgment 4060, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4060
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 4439
132nd Session, 2021
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official, impugns the decision taken by the WTO’s Deputy Directors-General concerning the investigation carried out in respect of a doctor in the Organization’s Medical Service, for having breached medical confidentiality and her duty of confidentiality.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Le Tribunal note que la décision attaquée par l’intéressé devant lui – à savoir, celle d’imposer une mesure administrative à la Dre J. – ne le concerne pas directement. Cette décision s’adresse à la Dre J., qui en est la seule destinataire. Même si le requérant n’est pas d’accord avec ladite mesure, qu’il considère être trop accommodante par rapport aux résultats de l’enquête menée par le Bureau du contrôle interne, il n’a pas d’intérêt à agir contre cette décision. Comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 1899, au considérant 3, «[l]es relations disciplinaires entre une organisation et un fonctionnaire ne concernent directement que ceux-ci; elles n’ont pas d’effets sur la situation juridique d’autres fonctionnaires. [Ainsi,] [l]es décisions relatives à une enquête ou à une mesure disciplinaires concernant un fonctionnaire ne sauraient [...] faire grief à d’autres fonctionnaires [et,] à défaut de grief, ceux-ci n’ont pas qualité pour recourir contre une sanction disciplinaire ou le refus d’en prononcer une.» Par ailleurs, il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une demande tendant à ce que le Tribunal ordonne l’imposition d’une sanction disciplinaire à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire échappe, en tout état de cause, à sa compétence (voir les jugements 4313, au considérant 11, 4291, au considérant 10, 4241, au considérant 4, 3318, au considérant 12, 2811, au considérant 15, 2636, au considérant 13, et 2190, au considérant 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2190, 2636, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4291, 4313
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; impugned decision; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4431
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a decision of the Administrative Council introducing new rules for employees of the European Patent Office concerning the right to strike.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In concluding that the internal appeal was irreceivable, the Appeals Committee rejected any suggestion that CA/D 5/13 had an immediate and adverse effect on the complainant. However the gist of the complainant’s argument in relation to Article 65(1)(c) was that it had had such an effect and, at least quite clearly implicitly, on his (and his colleagues’) right to strike. The Tribunal, in its Judgment 3761, consideration 14, made clear that a general decision may, in certain circumstances, be impugned if it immediately and adversely affects individual rights. The complainant’s argument involved such a contention. The conclusion of the Appeals Committee that his appeal was manifestly irreceivable failed to consider this question and was thus legally flawed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; internal appeal; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4430
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal case law to the effect that a general decision cannot be challenged by a staff member unless and until an individual decision is taken. But the Tribunal’s case law contains an exception or limitation. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3761 at consideration 14:
“In general, [an administrative decision of general application] is not subject to challenge until an individual decision adversely affecting the individual involved has been taken. However there are exceptions where the general decision does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; impugned decision;
Consideration 15
Extract:
In the absence of any implementing decision, the question that then arises is whether, in relation to the complainants, there has been an immediate and adverse effect on individual rights. The Tribunal is satisfied there has been. Circular No. 347 did have an immediate and adverse effect on the complainants’ right to strike. It is immaterial that they did not go on strike in June 2013 or that circumstances had not arisen where one or a number of the provisions of the Circular operated on or applied to conduct of the complainants. The effect was immediate because, at the date of promulgation of the Circular, it legally constrained future exercise of the right to strike or imposed burdens to the same effect. The complaints are receivable.
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; receivability of the complaint; right to strike; strike;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may impugn a decision only if it directly affects her or him, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her or him, but she or he is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated her or his cause of action (see, for example, Judgments 3291, consideration 8, and 4119, consideration 4). Accordingly, the complainants are entitled to challenge the individual decisions resulting from the increased pension contributions reflected in their subject payslips, as well as the lawfulness of general decision CA/D 10/13.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 4119
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; payslip;
Judgment 4419
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the appointment of members of the General Advisory Committee in 2012 and 2013.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; member of an internal body;
Consideration 4
Extract:
In a judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 24 July 2020, Judgment 4322, there was a conclusive determination that staff members in the position of the complainants had no cause of action to challenge, relevantly, the appointment of Vice-Presidents to the GAC (see Judgment 4322, considerations 8 and 9). Indeed the three complainants in the present proceedings were complainants in the proceedings leading to Judgment 4322. The question of whether the complainants had a cause of action was raised by the Tribunal of its own motion notwithstanding it had not been raised by the parties before the Tribunal. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis of the Tribunal in Judgment 4322. Suffice it to note that there are no material factual or legal differences between the circumstances addressed in that judgment and those of the present case [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4322
Keywords:
cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; member of an internal body; precedent;
Judgment 4417
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests instructions she received concerning patent applications.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; complaint dismissed;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
In consideration 11 of Judgment 3053, the Tribunal held, among other things, that decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not “adversely affect” staff members and, thus, cannot be the subject of an internal appeal. In short, such decisions are not appealable and do not create a cause of action. The Tribunal also held, in consideration 10 of Judgment 3053, that proposals and/or decisions relating to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not directly affect the relationship of staff members with the Organisation, although, as recognised in Judgment 2874, decisions or proposals as to the implementation of changes to the law and/or procedures may well do so.
The Tribunal does not see any reason to depart from the conclusions stated in the foregoing consideration.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2874, 3053
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action;
Judgment 4402
132nd Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.
The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.
The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3861
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;
Judgment 4397
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Organisation challenges the receivability of the complaint insofar as the “reassignment” was based on the complainant’s wish to remain in Vienna. […]
The complaint is receivable. The fact that the EPO was attempting to satisfy the complainant’s wish to remain in Vienna does not prevent her from contesting the resulting decision by which she was transferred to the specific post […].
Keywords:
cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4396
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reimburse him the notary fees which he incurred for the certification of his signature on the annual declaration required for recipients of an invalidity allowance.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff member who challenges an individual decision may, at the same time and in the same appeal, challenge the related underlying decision and that a staff member may, in challenging a decision that affects her or him directly, plead the unlawfulness of any general measure that affords the basis for it in law. A staff member may therefore impugn an administrative decision only if it directly affects her or him, but is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which generated their cause of action (see Judgment 3291, under 6 and 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 4394
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision deriving from the Administrative Council’s decision CA/D 2/15 to require the recipients of the new retirement pension for health reasons to cease performing gainful activities or employment or to refrain from performing such activities or employment.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
As acknowledged in the 17 July letters to the complainants, the amendments introduced by CA/D 2/15 were aimed at changing the complainants’ status. Specifically, as from 1 January 2016 the complainants would be granted a retirement pension for health reasons and would not be allowed to carry out gainful activities or employment, which had been permitted under their previous status, and this change was contrary to their interests. As the Tribunal has said before, “there may be a cause of action even if there is no present injury: time may go by before the impugned decision causes actual injury. The necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the complainant’s position” (see Judgments 1712, consideration 10, 2632, consideration 10, and 3337, consideration 7). The Tribunal finds that the notification of the complainants’ status change contained in the 17 July letters entitled “Implementation of Administrative Council decision CA/D 2/15 dated 26 March 2015: transitional measures for 2015” was reasonably construed by the complainants as the implementation of the general decision, triggering the count towards the deadlines for filing their requests for review.
In light of the above, the Tribunal finds that the Appeals Committee erred in recommending to summarily dismiss the complainants’ internal appeals as “manifestly irreceivable” for failure to establish a cause of action and the President of the Office erred when he endorsed that recommendation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1712, 2632, 3337
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; cause of action; complaint allowed;
Judgment 4356
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place him on the shortlist for a position for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has accepted that a staff member can challenge a selection process even if the position was ultimately not filled (see Judgment 4033), and that a flawed selection process can result in the loss of a valuable opportunity to be appointed (see Judgment 4098).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4033, 4098
Keywords:
cause of action; loss of opportunity; selection procedure;
Judgment 4347
131st Session, 2021
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director of PAHO to impose on him the disciplinary measure of reassignment with reduction in grade.
Consideration 28
Extract:
The complainant also submits that the decision is vitiated by an error of law, as the Board of Appeal was improperly composed and the appointment of a new Board of Appeal led to an egregious delay in the proceedings. The Tribunal finds that the composition of the Board of Appeal which reviewed his appeal was lawful and the delays in reconfiguring the Board of Appeal were not egregious. The length of the delay was principally determined by the complainant’s request to change the composition of the panel which was proposed to him on 26 May 2016. He requested the change as he objected to the proposal that the Board of Appeal members remain on the Board of Appeal beyond the expiry of their mandates, despite assurances that they had agreed to the extension of their appointments at the Organization’s request and with the knowledge and concurrence of the Staff Association. Therefore, the appeal was stayed, pending new elections for the Board of Appeal members nominated by the Staff Association. While it took a year to finalize the composition of the new panel, the Board of Appeal, once properly composed, rendered its preliminary report within three months and its final report within five months of receiving the Director’s 27 December 2017 decision. Moreover, the complainant has not provided convincing evidence of any negative effect on him caused by the delay in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Keywords:
cause of action; delay; internal appeal;
Judgment 4342
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for the position of Deputy General Counsel.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he fact that the complainant did not raise issues or objections during the process is of no legal consequence. Steps were taken in the selection process before the decision was made not to select the complainant and ultimately the decision to appoint another person. The complainant could not directly or immediately challenge those preliminary steps legally (see, for example, Judgment 3876, consideration 5). Moreover it could scarcely be expected that the complainant should run the risk of compromising his candidature by complaining about the conduct of those engaged in the selection process or otherwise complaining about the process at the time his application was being assessed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876
Keywords:
cause of action; selection procedure;
Judgment 4341
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for the position of General Counsel.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
The complainant argues that the recommendation of the Board was based on grossly inadequate reasoning, referring to Judgment 3995, consideration 4. The Tribunal accepts this is correct. It is to be recalled that the Board said it would not consider the complainant’s case on the merits because he had participated willingly and without objection in the selection process along the way. This led the Board to conclude, for no discernible reason, the complainant did not have a legally protected interest in the matter. The case law of the Tribunal repeatedly establishes that a staff member who has been unsuccessful in a competition has the legal right to challenge the lawfulness of the competition (see Judgments 1832, consideration 3(b)(2), and 3449, consideration 2) and internal appeals bodies have a corresponding duty to consider the challenge (see, for example, Judgment 3590, consideration 2). [...]
Moreover the fact that the complainant did not raise issues or objections during the process is of no legal consequence. Steps were taken in the selection process before the decision was made not to shortlist the complainant and ultimately the decision to appoint another person. The complainant could not directly or immediately challenge those steps legally (see, for example, Judgment 3876, consideration 5). Moreover it could scarcely be expected that the complainant should run the risk of compromising his candidature by complaining about the conduct of those engaged in the selection process or otherwise complaining about the process at the time his application was being assessed.
The approach of the Board involved an error of law and its effective adoption by the President is tainted by the same error (see Judgment 3490, consideration 18). IFAD defends the President’s approach by saying firstly, he had no power to refer the matter back to the Board and secondly and in any event the President “appraised the [Board]’s Report and recommendations in light of all the documentation he had at his disposal in relation to the [c]omplainant’s appeal”. If the President did not have power to refer the matter back to the Board, he had an obligation to motivate his decision to dismiss the appeal in the face of no motivation of substance from the Board itself. The President did not do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3449, 3490, 3590, 3876, 3995
Keywords:
cause of action; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; selection procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
